From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jun 7 23:10:21 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2328616A4D0 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 23:10:21 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ns1.xcllnt.net (209-128-86-226.bayarea.net [209.128.86.226]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27BFC43D64 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 23:10:13 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from marcel@xcllnt.net) Received: from ns1.xcllnt.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ns1.xcllnt.net (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i57NACM4011392; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 16:10:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marcel@ns1.xcllnt.net) Received: (from marcel@localhost) by ns1.xcllnt.net (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id i57NACkK011391; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 16:10:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marcel) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 16:10:12 -0700 From: Marcel Moolenaar To: Doug Rabson Message-ID: <20040607231012.GB11313@ns1.xcllnt.net> References: <1086625355.10911.39.camel@builder02.qubesoft.com> <20040607194237.GA10406@ns1.xcllnt.net> <200406072242.13393.dfr@nlsystems.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200406072242.13393.dfr@nlsystems.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1i cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADS UP! KSE needs more attention X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 23:10:21 -0000 On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 10:42:13PM +0100, Doug Rabson wrote: > On Monday 07 June 2004 20:42, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 05:22:35PM +0100, Doug Rabson wrote: > > > > > Actually its a bit better than that. It works for most use > > > > > cases right now on i386 but would get confused on dlclose. I'll > > > > > fix that before I move it into current. > > > > > > > > Does it work on static bound executables? > > > > > > Which one is static bound > > > > The executable; you know, no rtld. What I call complete executable to > > distinguish it from static TLS on my page. Does static TLS work? > > > > See also: http://wiki.daemon.li/index.pl?ThreadLocalStorage > > No, this one is not yet supported. I think I can deal with this inside > libc with some small support from the kernel (probably just to provide > details of the TLS segment size etc.) Ok, thanks. BTW, I was thinking along the same lines, although it looks from your description that I probably wanted to put more of the meat in the kernel to avoid making the startup code complex and possibly pessimizing non-TLS processes. Anyway: From my PoV, static TLS is not critical enough to force it in 5.3, but it is important enough to have soon after that. FYI, -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net